From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Feb 16 14:49:51 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 16 Feb 2002 22:49:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 76239 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2002 22:49:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Feb 2002 22:49:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.203) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Feb 2002 22:49:51 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 14:49:51 -0800 Received: from 200.69.6.16 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 22:49:50 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Subjunctives and worlds Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 22:49:50 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2002 22:49:51.0059 (UTC) FILETIME=[3E155230:01C1B73C] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.16] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e >Well, the combination with {ro} and {su'o} -- and the potential for the >rest >of PA -- suggests that *something* is being talked about, even if it does >not >go into details about what it is. Yes, {mu'ei} suggests "possibilities" the same way that {roi} suggests "occasions", but determining exactly what an occasion is would be about as hard as determining a possibility. >Our subjunctives use only termporal >notions, which we already have, or events, which we already have in Lojban. Well, let a thousand flowers bloom, I suppose. I don't really see how the temporal method would work. To me {ba} does not suggest a multiplicity of futures but only the one that gets realized, so I could never get to an alternate present using {puba}. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.